On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 19:25:16 +0100, "christofire"
wrote:

I had seen papers about inverted F antennas before (at an IEE or IET
symposium some ten years ago), and I vaguely recall hearing that some
manufacturers use them in mobile phones, but I'd never seen a pattern as
uniform as the result of your simulation.

Hi Chris,

For a more academic treatment, the antenna is also known as the
"U-Shaped Antenna of Shtrikman." His has three wires, my fourth wire
is much like the J-Pole feed point attachment.

Now, one proviso: this is not an isotropic in the sense of providing
equal polarization at any angle. Nothing can accomplish that due to
that requirement being impossible to meet (the so-called "hairy ball"
problem). So, I simply resolved that with my carbon golf ball with
its thermistor for detecting the Inverted F's total field to within
the degree of less than 2dB variation over the shell surrounding the
antenna.

Good. Maybe this will encourage Art to have a go at my challenge by
applying his own theories then.

As I've shown, they are not his theories. Art doesn't have theories,
they are illusions. Shtrikman's antenna has a model and a practical,
real example that agree with one another in performance. The design
is revealed and can be reproduced by anyone. No advanced math is
demanded to perfect the results. No allusion to nuclear forces is
required to explain any principle. Anyone can, and HAS built an
antenna that Art can only mumble about. Perhaps I am mislead about
this mumble, having kill-filed him, as I see his contribution (sic)
only through other's quotes; few of which are full quotes (I can
understand why).

This last week in my driving through rain city, I've seen a street
corner beggar who has worked one particular intersection for a couple
of years now. He has a weather protected laminated board describing
his plea, and he wears goretex weather gear that I couldn't afford. He
does have this hang-dog appearance and shambling shuffle tho'. What is
one to believe when it comes to claims? Clearly money talks. Who
knows? He may have a patented system and sells franchises.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 19:25:16 +0100, "christofire"
wrote:

I had seen papers about inverted F antennas before (at an IEE or IET
symposium some ten years ago), and I vaguely recall hearing that some
manufacturers use them in mobile phones, but I'd never seen a pattern as
uniform as the result of your simulation.

Hi Chris,

For a more academic treatment, the antenna is also known as the
"U-Shaped Antenna of Shtrikman." His has three wires, my fourth wire
is much like the J-Pole feed point attachment.

Now, one proviso: this is not an isotropic in the sense of providing
equal polarization at any angle. Nothing can accomplish that due to
that requirement being impossible to meet (the so-called "hairy ball"
problem).

I had understood it to be impossible on the basis of normal physics but Art
Unwin's claim wasn't clear in respect of polarisation.


So, I simply resolved that with my carbon golf ball with
its thermistor for detecting the Inverted F's total field to within
the degree of less than 2dB variation over the shell surrounding the
antenna.

Now I understand what you meant by 'total field' - sum of powers of
components in all polarisations.


Good. Maybe this will encourage Art to have a go at my challenge by
applying his own theories then.

As I've shown, they are not his theories. Art doesn't have theories,
they are illusions. Shtrikman's antenna has a model and a practical,
real example that agree with one another in performance. The design
is revealed and can be reproduced by anyone. No advanced math is
demanded to perfect the results. No allusion to nuclear forces is
required to explain any principle. Anyone can, and HAS built an
antenna that Art can only mumble about. Perhaps I am mislead about
this mumble, having kill-filed him, as I see his contribution (sic)
only through other's quotes; few of which are full quotes (I can
understand why).

Shtrikman's antenna sounds interesting. I will look up references.


This last week in my driving through rain city, I've seen a street
corner beggar who has worked one particular intersection for a couple
of years now. He has a weather protected laminated board describing
his plea, and he wears goretex weather gear that I couldn't afford. He
does have this hang-dog appearance and shambling shuffle tho'. What is
one to believe when it comes to claims? Clearly money talks. Who
knows? He may have a patented system and sells franchises.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Over here we've recently been subjected to the phenomenon of 'Seasick
Steve' - who 'started out with nothing and still has most of it left' but
also has a substantial recording contract. What is one to believe, as you
so rightly say?

Chris

On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 02:08:20 +0100, "christofire"
wrote:

I had understood it to be impossible on the basis of normal physics but Art
Unwin's claim wasn't clear in respect of polarisation.

Hi Chris,

Black body radiators do qualify as Isotropic; and as Art has claimed
high efficiencies for RF impracticalities, it must be for efficient
Infrared emission.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 02:08:20 +0100, "christofire"
wrote:

I had understood it to be impossible on the basis of normal physics but
Art
Unwin's claim wasn't clear in respect of polarisation.

Hi Chris,

Black body radiators do qualify as Isotropic; and as Art has claimed
high efficiencies for RF impracticalities, it must be for efficient
Infrared emission.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


.... but are randomly polarised, and I'd expect communication between a
randomly-polarised antenna and either a normal, polarised antenna or another
randomly polarised one to be lossy in comparison with the unusual case.

Nevertheless, the principle that heaters are highly efficient is an amusing,
occasionally useful one - standby dissipation contributing to heating your
house and all that.

Chris

"christofire" wrote in message
...

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 02:08:20 +0100, "christofire"
wrote:

I had understood it to be impossible on the basis of normal physics but
Art
Unwin's claim wasn't clear in respect of polarisation.

Hi Chris,

Black body radiators do qualify as Isotropic; and as Art has claimed
high efficiencies for RF impracticalities, it must be for efficient
Infrared emission.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


... but are randomly polarised, and I'd expect communication between a
randomly-polarised antenna and either a normal, polarised antenna or
another randomly polarised one to be lossy in comparison with the unusual
case.

* That was meant to be 'the usual case' - I let the spell checker have its
way without looking at the result!


Nevertheless, the principle that heaters are highly efficient is an
amusing, occasionally useful one - standby dissipation contributing to
heating your house and all that.

Chris

"christofire" wrote
...


Now I understand what you meant by 'total field' - sum of powers of
components in all polarisations.

Does one wave has many polarizations, or one antenna has many polarizations?
Which one: transmitter or receiver? Could you teach me?
A*

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...

"christofire" wrote
...


Now I understand what you meant by 'total field' - sum of powers of
components in all polarisations.

Does one wave has many polarizations, or one antenna has many
polarizations? Which one: transmitter or receiver? Could you teach me?
A*


You appear to have changed your identity from S* to A* !

The answers according to the physics that real-life radio communication
depends upon, and was designed by, a

A single EM wave is plane polarised. It is composed of a magnetic field H
that acts in a direction perpendicular to the direction of propagation, the
magnitude and sign of this field varying as a travelling wave in the
direction of propagation, and an attendant electric field E that also acts
in a direction perpendicular to the direction of propagation. The magnitude
and sign of the electric field varies as a travelling wave, coherent and in
phase with the magnetic field and the magnetic field is a direct consequence
of current flowing in the transmitting antenna. The directions in which the
H and E fields act, in the plane transverse to the direction of propagation,
are mutually perpendicular and the direction in which the E field acts, by
convention, defines the polarisation.

Thus a single EM wave has a single, plane, polarisation. Different
combinations of waves are possible such as circular polarisation and, more
generally, elliptical polarisation, but these can always be resolved into
orthogonal plane components.

Simple antennas like straight-wire dipoles and loops transmit and respond to
plane polarised EM waves. More complicated antennas can be made to transmit
and receive circular polarisation of one sense or the other, and generally
an antenna will tend to transmit or be sensitive to some combination of
different plane polarisations. In addition to radiated EM waves, there are
also induction fields in a region close to the antenna.

In a system that contains no anisotropic material (e.g. magnetised ferrite),
when the distance between transmitting and receiving antennas is at least
tens of wavelengths, the principle of reciprocity applies. By this
principle the properties of an antenna when transmitting are the same as
when it is receiving - the properties including the polarisation, radiation
pattern and terminal impedance.

If you find any of this interesting, please don't believe what I've written
here but go to a technical library (e.g. at a University) and look up the
authoritative sources - books on antennas and propagation by Kraus, Jasik,
Jordan and Balmain, Terman, etc.

Please _do not_ respond here telling me or the group that EM waves are
longitudinal and are not polarised.

Chris

"christofire" wrote in message
...

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...

"christofire" wrote
...


Now I understand what you meant by 'total field' - sum of powers of
components in all polarisations.

Does one wave has many polarizations, or one antenna has many
polarizations? Which one: transmitter or receiver? Could you teach me?
A*


You appear to have changed your identity from S* to A* !

The answers according to the physics that real-life radio communication
depends upon, and was designed by, a

A single EM wave is plane polarised. It is composed of a magnetic field H
that acts in a direction perpendicular to the direction of propagation,
the magnitude and sign of this field varying as a travelling wave in the
direction of propagation, and an attendant electric field E that also acts
in a direction perpendicular to the direction of propagation. The
magnitude and sign of the electric field varies as a travelling wave,
coherent and in phase with the magnetic field and the magnetic field is a
direct consequence of current flowing in the transmitting antenna. The
directions in which the H and E fields act, in the plane transverse to the
direction of propagation, are mutually perpendicular and the direction in
which the E field acts, by convention, defines the polarisation.

Thus a single EM wave has a single, plane, polarisation. Different
combinations of waves are possible such as circular polarisation and, more
generally, elliptical polarisation, but these can always be resolved into
orthogonal plane components.

Simple antennas like straight-wire dipoles and loops transmit and respond
to plane polarised EM waves. More complicated antennas can be made to
transmit and receive circular polarisation of one sense or the other, and
generally an antenna will tend to transmit or be sensitive to some
combination of different plane polarisations. In addition to radiated EM
waves, there are also induction fields in a region close to the antenna.

In a system that contains no anisotropic material (e.g. magnetised
ferrite), when the distance between transmitting and receiving antennas is
at least tens of wavelengths, the principle of reciprocity applies. By
this principle the properties of an antenna when transmitting are the same
as when it is receiving - the properties including the polarisation,
radiation pattern and terminal impedance.

If you find any of this interesting, please don't believe what I've
written here but go to a technical library (e.g. at a University) and look
up the authoritative sources - books on antennas and propagation by Kraus,
Jasik, Jordan and Balmain, Terman, etc.

Please _do not_ respond here telling me or the group that EM waves are
longitudinal and are not polarised.

Chris


.... but the libraries are probably closed today so, for an instant, online
source you could do worse than visit
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...icy/navy/nrtc/, download
the NEETS module 'ELECTRONICS TECHNICIAN, VOLUME 07--ANTENNAS AND WAVE
PROPAGATION ' and read it. It's based on the same, real world physics.

Chris

On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 12:46:30 +0100, "christofire"
wrote:

Does one wave has many polarizations, or one antenna has many
polarizations? Which one: transmitter or receiver? Could you teach me?
A*


You appear to have changed your identity from S* to A* !

The answers according to the physics that real-life radio communication
depends upon, and was designed by, a


A much simpler, and compelling explanation:
what you see is what you get.

If it looks vertical, the polarization is vertical;
If it looks horizontal, the polarization is horizontal.

It thus stands to reason that if the radiator is U shaped you see both
horizontal and vertical - hence the full sphere filled with radiation.

This closes the simple answer, which of course drives a very lengthy
explanation - there is no such thing as a free lunch:

Now, I can well anticipate some wag pointing out that they are
standing, looking at these "goal posts" edge on and see only the
vertical supports. "There is no horizontal view - no horizontal
polarization. It can't be isotropic!"

Of course it can't; and yet the vertical radiation fills the null of
the horizontal (and likewise, the horizontal fills the null of the
vertical). Total field is spherical.

What does this make of a tilted radiator? What you see is what you
get. At some perspectives it looks goofy horizontal AND it looks
goofy vertical. In other perspectives it just looks vertical. As Art
might protest: "Never mind goofy, how much horizontal?" If we reduce
this to a number of goofiness, a trig function would serve quite well.
Most students who were trained in mechanics would recognize the method
to deconstruct an angle into its two, XY, components. If the tilt
were 45 degrees, in full view of that angle you must experience the
single antenna as having two equal vertical and horizontal
contributions to radiation. If it were tilted 30 degrees, obviously
one polarization would dominate over the other. Ground would compound
the issue, but would not negate the general principle.

This last part returns us to the discussion of isotropism which
encompasses the topic of Lambert's Law which is generally confined to
a black body radiator (or the sun from a great distance as it fails to
be isotropic in the near view, such as we have here on earth). Few
here need concern themselves with this unless they are making patch
antennas. However, within the discussion above, the topic of view,
angle, and radiation contribution are wrapped up in Lambert and
cosine.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Sep 13, 11:29*am, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 12:46:30 +0100, "christofire"

wrote:
Does one wave has many polarizations, or one antenna has many
polarizations? Which one: transmitter or receiver? Could you teach me?
A*

You appear to have changed your identity from S* to A* !

The answers according to the physics that real-life radio communication
depends upon, and was designed by, a

A much simpler, and compelling explanation:
* * * * *what you see is what you get.

If it looks vertical, the polarization is vertical;
If it looks horizontal, the polarization is horizontal.

It thus stands to reason that if the radiator is U shaped you see both
horizontal and vertical - hence the full sphere filled with radiation.

This closes the simple answer, which of course drives a very lengthy
explanation - there is no such thing as a free lunch:

Now, I can well anticipate some wag pointing out that they are
standing, looking at these "goal posts" edge on and see only the
vertical supports. *"There is no horizontal view - no horizontal
polarization. *It can't be isotropic!"

Of course it can't; and yet the vertical radiation fills the null of
the horizontal (and likewise, the horizontal fills the null of the
vertical). *Total field is spherical.

What does this make of a tilted radiator? *What you see is what you
get. *At some perspectives it looks goofy horizontal AND it looks
goofy vertical. *In other perspectives it just looks vertical. *As Art
might protest: *"Never mind goofy, how much horizontal?" *If we reduce
this to a number of goofiness, a trig function would serve quite well.
Most students who were trained in mechanics would recognize the method
to deconstruct an angle into its two, XY, components. *If the tilt
were 45 degrees, in full view of that angle you must experience the
single antenna as having two equal vertical and horizontal
contributions to radiation. *If it were tilted 30 degrees, obviously
one polarization would dominate over the other. *Ground would compound
the issue, but would not negate the general principle.

This last part returns us to the discussion of isotropism which
encompasses the topic of Lambert's Law which is generally confined to
a black body radiator (or the sun from a great distance as it fails to
be isotropic in the near view, such as we have here on earth). *Few
here need concern themselves with this unless they are making patch
antennas. *However, within the discussion above, the topic of view,
angle, and radiation contribution are wrapped up in Lambert and
cosine.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard cannot read this. However I find his posting to be rewarding .
The present aproach to radiation is that a free electron is torn away
from the nucleous of an atom which creates uncertaincy. Such an action
is that of the strong force which is akin the the splitting of an atom
where such an action would release electrons such that they would
bombard electrical networks such as in Hawaii. When one uses Maxwells
equations
it becomes very obvious that with decreasing impeadance radiation
increases until we get to the point of zero impedance where reality is
forced to be reviewed.
Since we now recognize that radiation is not created by the radiator
itself as it is only a carrier of a radiator, the model used must be
of cylinder type of homogeonos free electrons
where removal of the free electrons/particles is by a "weak force" and
not a strong force.
Thus in reality the model to be used is that of a cylinder where the
"stiction" of each electron,(I should really keep to the term particle
so one does not automatically insert neutrinos or a subset of
leptons) to a diamagnetic material is effectively replaced by a hoop
stress which first showed up in the boundary of the "Big Bang".
Now we have something that meets reality, where increase in current
applied creates an increase in radiation and where the model is seen
to be a boundary consisting of particles bound to each other! This is
basically implied by Maxwell's equations as illustrated by the
computer programs where radiation increase is proportional to the
decrease of impedance
of the energy robbing metallic radiator and where cylindrical boundary
model increases it's share of the current applied for continued
radiation and still is in concert with known laws
without resorting to extreme low temperature to attain "zero
impedance" which lacks reality.
As a side note. It is the arbitrary boundary in shear (spin) which
provides the Weak Force of the Standard Model as foreseen by Einstein
when he took on his fruitless search. And it would appear that the
reversal of the positive sign of the shown "Radio World" material is
somewhat supporting of this posting but that should be the subject of
a separate thread.
Art Unwin